Monday, March 27, 2017

The Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down?

*(The problem with just assuming that this IS a hoax - since both the White House and the German government sources deny it - is that 1) sane people in both governments have powerful reasons to deny the the Tangerine Toddler may actually have done this while, given his oft-stated position that the chintzy Eurotrash are welching on their NATO budgets, it seems eminently possible that he WOULD do something just like this, and 2) this is the same week that the White House simply flat-out lied about Trump's golfventures, one more in the seemingly countless ridiculously pointless lies that emerge from this Administration.

Ridiculous because they have made lying their coin and it has become extremely difficult to believe they're NOT lying when they assert something they want to be true or deny something they wish weren't; that's the difference between the sort of "normal politician lies" and "Trump Administration lies". The latter could be, and have been, without any genuine rationale or need, and one of the enormous problems with this sort of constant lying. Soon even the truth is assumed to be an imposter within the bodyguard of lies...)

43 comments:

I think we have to assume that no one in a decision-making position is so inept at diplomacy that they would ever let this progress from a bad water-cooler joke idea to actual implementation.

That said, that this is even considered plausible seems to me to be a reflection of a number of factors that are distinct from the White House’s curious relationship with facts:

1. Lack of political experience in the White House inner circle;2. Lack of awareness of how nations interact in general (and how NATO works in specific) among the same group;3. Isolation of the same group from the civil service due to the ongoing failure/slow pace/partisan obstructionism in filling the thousands of key political appointee positions.

I’d like to think that the inner circle will learn by doing, and most of the rest of the western world recognizes that the stakes are high enough to absorb some of these blunders in the name of allowing time for that learning to occur, but it sure would help if they would make it easier to get (and listen to) the civil service.

My concern is the number of people in Trump's politburo that 1) are political fantacists and who 2) prize pursuing their political wet-dreams over practical foreign policy. My sense is that they don't WANT to listen to the professionals; they see things like diplomacy and compromise as weakness and State as a hive of beta cucks. They're the alpha males, the silverbacks, and they get up in your face and dare you to confront them...that's why, as idiotic as this stunt would have been it has the whiff of something Trump or Miller or Bannon would have come up with. Hopefully not...but...

It's not really the countries who did it. Executive branch politicians who want to have more money to spend on toys did it - they were not authorised to make a binding pledge, and thus the pledge was non-binding anyway.

Imagine all hair stylists of New York held a congress and pledged that all new Yorkers need to have one $ 50 haircut every 14 days.That's quite the same. Now why again would New Yorkers/Germans feel compelled to pay for that if they have no such needs?

Keep in mind Russia is incapable of conventionally defending itself against the conventional military might of the European NATO countries, and those have two nuclear powers among them. There's NO REASON AT ALL to spend more. All European NATO countries could spend 1% GDP on the military and the U.S. could turn neutral - Europe would still be safe.

Mainstream American ideas of Europe and military affairs are ridiculously ignorant of reality.

The U.S. public thinks the USG spends something like 10% of the federal budget on foreign aid and thinks that most of that goes to buy iPhones for Liberians instead of providing 155mm projos to Israelis. The mainstream American is an ass. Which, to a large degree, is why we are where we are...

Chief,my 1st comment is off target, but pertinent to a former entry by you.the army times vol. no. 78 issue no.5 has an art. titled= why it matters mcmaster still wears his uniform. AND another=what the wh got wrong about scowcroft. page 5.i don't know how to link etc, but thot you'd like to read this article.

now to nato.SO-isn't the german army now 169,000 plus/minus?chief,the question about money is the wrong question.since so many nato members are former warsaw pact types, istm that they may blow in the wind when a real war whiffs around their borders.i don't believe that most of nato would fight or be of benefit if they were called upon to actually fight.do we really think that they care one bean about US interests.let the eu form their own army.why are we defending them?jim hruska

Because, if you remember your history, Jim, "we" ended up filling a lot of what are now very pretty parklike cemeteries after "they" couldn't work things out amicably.

Not that I'd expect the buffoons surrounding His Fraudulency to understand, but you and I know perfectly well that NATO was as much a creation of Cold War geopolitics as a military association. I'm willing to buy the argument that it is a different beast in 2017 compared to 1967, but to piss around with a senior Western ally like Germany to gratify some dopey right-wingnut talking point - assuming that's what really happened - is just moron-grade foreign policy.

If I thought that Trump and his people were genuinely planning a withdrawal from the Middle Eastern wars I'd buy the notion that this was part of a larger scheme to reduce overseas commitments and reduce optempo. But that's not what's happening. The US actions in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen are the busiest they've been since 2008. To do that while supposedly snarking a powerful ally? That's..suboptimal.

The U.S. is not really defending Europe. That's a de facto myth.U.S. troops in are using Europe as staging bases to bomb or occupy Muslim countries, defence of Europe is an afterthought at most.

The U.S.Army has one Stryker Bde and one airborne Bde in Germany - both with terrible arty (M777, no MLRS), no MBTs, no air defences to speak of, dependence on GPS and radio comm and generally little mobile warfare utility against Russian army brigades.

Here's the state of preparedness, as exposed during a photo op in Estonia:https://picload.org/image/rcgariii/m1desertcamoinestonia.jpg

That's why my comment was that NATO was as much or more a political agreement, Sven, and moreso today than at the height of the Cold War. The U.S. doesn't really kick much military force into NATO as a "defend against the GSFG" anymore. It uses NATO as an offhand ready-made "coalition of the willing" for adventures in the Middle East (or the Balkans).

I think that it's time and past time for the Western nations to reconsider NATO and what it's for...

Well, years ago I wrote that NATO's principal utility is in keeping Europe and North America from becoming adversaries.It saves us Europeans a lot of money not because Americans protect us but because we don't need to protect us against Americans.

This may change with Trump. I'm considering writing a post about how the U.S. cannot be considered a reliable ally in the event of aggression against Europeans, and why this is no big deal anyway.

And in case you meant the new one; I wrote a lengthy draft and decided not to publish it. It was written centred on the "liar" nature and resulting unreliability. Initially hesitated to publish it because I had added another angle that was poorly sourced and probably not true.Today I would at the very least add the Russia connection (if not blackmail potential).

Chief,as u know , i am perfectly understanding of your position.why do none of you address my comment that we should deep six nato and the EU should develop its own military.didn't PRESIDENT TRUMP say that he is not POTUS of the world?

Chief, why do we clean up any bodies mess?maybe, just maybe if we practiced true neutrality in ww1, there would never have been a Hitler, except as a house painter.didn't every American leave the old country behind for a reason?Hitler couldn't breach the english channel, so how would he invade the US?last i checked the atlantic is a bit wider than the channel.ALSO i can't swallow fighting a war to save communism.how was this in our long term interests? sTALIN was a worst actor than Adolf.why not let europe continue their ancient game plans, and we can play out ours.why do we need europe any way?every war that we've had was rooted in european colonial garbage. the whole bunch are opportunistic players.yes sir, i'll not fight for the ukraine,slovakia or any other old world country.in closing - if Germany is comfortable with their force level, then i suggest we pull up our skirts and head for the barn.jim hruska

NATO is much to the advantage of the U.S. politically and militarily. It offers a ready-made "coalition of the willing" for U.S. adventuring in the Middle East, Africa, southwest Asia (and, earlier, in the Balkans). It provides political cover for what would otherwise be naked U.S. imperial business. As Sven points out, it provides geopolitical cover for lily pads supporting those adventures, and, as he also points out, Europe has plenty of combat power; more than the U.S. has IN Europe at the moment, anyway.

As for "President" Trump, he's also said that Michelle Obama put kale flakes in his taco bowl. Quoting Trump is like citing Skippy the Bush Kangaroo; it's nearly impossible to tell which of his lies are actual lies and which are simply the product of a mind so shallow and ill-informed that it's hard to tell what he knows and doesn't. But for a guy who claims that he's not "President of the world" he's certainly exercising the Presidential powers for throwing munitions around; the optempo in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen has jacked up significantly since his inauguration.

That, of course, assuming the it IS the Tangerine Toddler behind this and not his Grima Wormtongue, Steve Bannon...

But to your larger point...why do we "clean up anybody's mess"? The same reason Great Powers have always done; to gain political advantage, to advance their interests. NATO is a huge geopolitical plus for the U.S., providing cover and support for what would otherwise be seen as nakedly imperial adventures.

Why do we "need Europe"? For the same reason that empires have always needed allies and clients.

Now...ask me if I think all this imperial farkling about has value for you and me and Joe and Molly American? I'd say...not worth the price, no. But to change that you'd need to, as you discuss, change EVERYTHING; history, society, politics...it would mean, to a great extent, refashioning the U.S. from the ground up.

That's not an ignoble goal. But it's an enormous one, and it's a LOT more than "pulling up our skirts". It's a whole new fucking wardrobe.

Just try to imagine how to bomb Afghanistan without British base Diego Garcia or the Kuwaiti or Qatari bases. The USN was able to fly to AFG with Hornets, but it wasn't able to provide enough aerial refuelling for them on its own.

1] T-Rex gave no signs as to what would happen if they did not meet the deadline. But he backtracked on Trump's suggestion that he might not come to the defense of those allies who do not do their fair share.

2] German Foreign Minister said 2% of their GDP would mean they were spending more on defense than Russia does currently.

As for me, I would like to see how much of the 3.61% of GDP spent by the US on defense applies to NATO issues. We also have commitments in the Pacific not shared by the great majority of NATO countries. Therefore any comparison of our spending and European spending on defense is gibberish IMHO.

SO,Why must we bomb Afghanistan? If for some reason we needed to utilize Diego Garcia I imagine that reason would be serious enough for the Brits to let us. Are you saying that we have to be a member of NATO to be able to use Diego Garcia. If the Brits were really to deny use when really needed, then they're not allies and we should just take it from them. But, again, I ask, why is the USA needing to be doing militaristic things such that they need Diego Garcia in the first place.

I'm with Jim. If Europe is so crazy as to immolate itself in another war, then let it. We can buy up the surviving assets real cheap afterwards, which will offset the cost of loss of business occurring during the immolation.

Are Europeans such toddlers that they can't take on the responsibility of defending themselves from themselves? One of the reasons Europeans can afford all the socialist programs that Americans liberals want is that they don't maintain a sufficient military. Why do we sacrifice our healthcare to be the police of the world?

Why has the American left become McCarthy-ites all of the sudden? All this fear of big bad Putin begins to sound like either clinical paronoia They are beginning to sound as rabidly lunatic as McCain.

" NATO is a huge geopolitical plus for the U.S., providing cover and support for what would otherwise be seen as nakedly imperial adventures."

Yes. All the more reason to drop out of NATO or force its dissolution by forcing them to pay what is owed as Trump puts it in layman's termed, but which we all know means building their forces to where they can defend themselves and stop relying on the US.

Who cares if Trump insults Merkel? Merkel won't be a good partner, then she should handed a big fat bill in an abrupt manner.

I am not understanding why people that claim to hate imperialism are hating that Trump wants to end the modus operandi that they say aids in conducting imperialism.

The irrational hatred of Trump leads to all sorts of conflicting logic and other nonsense.

PS - McCarthyites? I see you have all the talking points passed down from the right wing hate media.

Better you should read your history. McCarthy went after tens of thousands of Americans in the State Dept, in the Army, in Hollywood, in schools, in Unions, and in medicine. Hundreds were jailed. 12,000 lost their jobs.

The investigaion into Russian meddling in our electoral process is miniscule in comparison - perhaps 1/100th of 1 percent. Only one person has lost his job, and he can well afford it after taking a half million dollars for lobbying for a foreign government. Nobody has gone to jail. McCarthy was Republican Chairman of the Senate committee that engineered this monstrosity. Where is your leftist today with the same power as McCarthy? Republicans are leading the investigations into Flynn, Manafort & Kushner - not Democrats. They (Republican politicians) are the ones that hate him.

BTW - I'm a liberal and do not hate Trump. And I do not know of any liberal friends who hate him. We generally mock him for being a liar and a bozo - a slick bozo who makes Slick Willy look like a Saint.

I will be happy if he closes American bases overseas. So far his actions, and the actions of his Cabinet do not lead me to believe he is going to do that.

Mike, A mob mentality - like McCarthyism - doesn't start in full blown expression. It has to build momentum. Wild fires start with a random lightening strike or a carelessly tossed cigarette butt. So at this moment the media and the elected geniuses in DC are blaring the message daily that Putin is a monster and Russia the enemy. This has been going on since the US assisted coup in the Ukraine. Anyone who talks to Russians in any capacity other than threatening them, is being labeled something very close to treason. The idea of working with Russia to defeat the maniac head-choppers in the Levant is even considered wrong think and subversive. Sounds like the beginning of McCarthyism to me.

Trump ran on a platform full of promises just like any politician does. At this point I see him as no more or less likely to break those promises than any other politician. I preferred Trump to the other candidates and, especially, Clinton, for several reasons, but his stumping for more isolationist FP was one of the big points in his favor, IMO. I see his machinations w regard to Merkel as the beginning moves to keeping the promise to pull out of NATO. I'm willing to give Trump a chance.

Avedis; has it been that long that the misrule of Dubya and Darth Cheney has completely slipped down the memory hole? Am I missing some crucial Trumpian eleventh-dimension chess that distinguishes this nutty cluster of fuck from the Third Term of Dummya and his idiot minions?

"Irrational hatred"? For a moronic narcissist with a second-grade understanding of governance and an ankle-high threshold of competence, who has shown all of us in less than a quarter of the fiscal year that his only interests are personal grifting and petty revenge?

At least Dubya needed a couple of years before he proved to all but his mindless CHUDs that he was less competent than a bag of fucking hammers. This mook got there on Day One. Irrational? Seriously?

Hating and fearing powerful malefactors is UTTERLY rational. It's the poor fools who still think the Tangerine Toddler has an actual plan outside of "Fuck y'all, I've got mine!" who are living in Cloud Cookooland.

And, above all, to claim that Trump is some sort of isolationist who will rein in the U.S.' imperial shenanigans is to assume facts utterly not in evidence. Trump's own rhetoric suggests his imperial ambitions include wars of extermination in the Muslim world AQ well as a withdrawal from the norms of Western institutions that would constrain his enthusiasm for weapons such as carpet bombing civilians and torture of captives.

Sorry, man...but, again; hate for and fear of that sort of barbarism is perfectly rational.

Chief, Where were those norms of western institutions during ww2? My knowledge of history says there was lots of carpet bombing of civilians. Same norms permitted millions to be machined gunned to death and blown to bits by arty in mass wave attacks across open ground in ww1 + poison gas. Same norms had Obama drone striking US citizens, wedding parties, etc. Either the norms of western civ are not what you think they are or some special set of ideals that never existed except in your mind only apply to Trump?

I was unaware that NCO training and experience involved the equivalent of a PhD in psychology or MD/psychiatry and development of psychic powers - where you one of the "men who stare at goats", Stargate, etc?. You're a funny guy. Does NATO do the US any favors or not? Should the US use NATO as a smoke screen for imperialism or not? Trump is the only one I am aware of that expresses a desire to withdraw and minimize imperialism. Meanwhile, he wants to eliminate the barbarians in the Levant, working with Russia to accomplish that. Minimal US boots on the ground. Great! Let Russia and the Syrian Army do the heavy lifting. That's hardly imperialism of the order of Obama's little girl Nuland threatening Russia with troop movements in Poland and a bunch of big time big oil sponsored spook shit in the Ukraine, resulting in a shooting war. You gotta twist yourself into massive cognitive dissonant pretzel to convince yourself that the Dems aren't members of the same imperialists club as Bush/Cheney. With Trump we have a chance. With your preferred crowd we were heading for a major confrontation with Russia.

All the social justice warrior virtue signaling programs in the world aint worth a hill of beans if a nuclear war breaks out.

Horseshit. I have NO idea where this notion of "Trump the Pacifist" is coming from, but it doesn't take psychology to realize that it's just the usual Trump Bullshit(TM). Optempo in the ME is up, "boots" are on the ground in Syria and Iraq. The proposed budget flings cash at the DoD like a drunken Rotarian in Vegas. How the hell do you get "With Trump we have a chance" out of that?

A chance for Dubya-on-steroids fuckups, sure. But this weird insistence the Trump is really Noam Chomsky with bad hair baffles the hell out of me. Sure, he says stuff. He claimed he had a "university", too. Are you saying we should believe THAT, too..?

The other issue here is that, beyond Trump, there's the GOP. There's no constituency in the GOP for "less rubble, less trouble". None. Am I missing someone? Where's the drumbeating for less mayhem in pursuit of Allah-pesterers?

At least on the blue side there IS an antiwar Left. Not the Clintonistas, no. But Our Revolution would have pushed her to be less belligerent.

Where's the equivalent on the Right? Assume that Trump actually means what he says (a huge "not a given"); who in the Congressional GOP would back him? Sucking up to Putin? Decoupling from the "war on terror"? Where is Trumpy gonna get pals? His boys Bannon and Miller are all "clash of civilization" nutballs . He doesn't listen to Mattis or McMaster.

So you're saying we should take Trump.on faith? What has he done - not said, DONE - to deserve that?

Chief, Addressing Putin as a strong leader of country with strong people and, it should not be forgotten lots of nuclear weapons and regional interests of its own and some interests in common with us - in other words, with the respect, understanding and courtesy we would like to be addressed with ourselves - is "sucking up"? If that isn't an imperialist perspective, I don't what is.

Anyhow, you make my point for me re; irrational hatred. Why wouldn't the blue anti-war faction you speak of back up Trump if not for a cut of my nose to spite my face thinking?

In fairness, when it comes to FP, there isn't any daylight between establishment Rs and Ds. A McCain, a Clinton, six of one, half dozen the other. Trump is not establishment. This is why they're all to get him.

Also, I think you are totally misreading how Trump supporters feel about war. Most Trump supporters I know have no interest in imperialist wars at all. In fact, some are veterans of the longest war in our history and they want it all to end. That said, many do support stomping out ISIS in alliance with Russia.... and then going home. They are not the boogeyman you have imagined. Your revolution would have done didly squat about stopping World War Clinton. They'd all be pacified with free sex change operations, legal weed, free from Soros flags to burn and the extra welfare that Ds would rain upon them. It's not like they're really all that invested in peace, because they don't have to fight.

The McCarthyism & mob mentality you are talking about was the sliming of HRC over the sad events in Libya. Which would have never happened if the Republicans in Congress had not cut funding for Embassy and Consulate security.

As for American Isolationism, I am for it and have been for decades. Trump is not and never has been and never will be an isolationist. His comments about NATO are just more of his attempts at negotiation - which he is terrible at if you examine his past track record in the business world.

SO,thanks for your clear and concise reply.i sometimes feel like i'm out on the flank without any mutual support.

here we are in 2017 which is 100 years on for the US part in ww1.we got into that mess without even being in the entangling alliances. what did we get out of that war?after 50 years up to 1947 we fought 2 wars in europe and a few little shoot tm ups in the pacific arena. we did this without alliances.take the 50 years after 1967 which are all in my memory banks and we did pretty well without alliances.in fact we did so well that we haven't won a war. we could strech the point and say we never lost a war, but sadly this is playing with words. we may be dominant militarily, but we can't win a peace, and this is against crummy 3rd world war lords.now for present day europe.most of nato is former warsaw dudes, who in former ww2 were nazi allies.the shakeup leads me to believe that they are purely political opportunists.if the ballon goes up the key point is that they won't fight.did the nazi allies in ww2 turn back the russian hordes?did france really oppose the german occupation? did France fight the japanese in indochina? did the french in 1969 cause problems in nato?would we really go to war with russia over the ukraine?christ, i hope not. the ukrainians are not worth the words needed to defend them, much less any actual US blood to protect them.nobody asks where the money comes from if we are to have future wars.do we learn from history?COALITION warfare does not work.at least as we do it.

now more on germany.we want them to pay more for their defense AFTER our mideast dustups flooded them with sad immigrants. who pays that bill. maybe the germans should demand a contribution from the us for this mess.strangely nobody addresses this issue. we are dirty in this issue.i predict that the germans will eventually play this card.any way i ramble.if any one believes that nato would stop a determined russian assault on the old warsaw pact members then that person is delusional. to stop them we'd have to light up the battle zone with tac and possibly strategic weapons.now thats a less than comforting thought.theres not enough depth to the battle zone for friendly forces to organize a true defense.it's the same problem that the poles had in sep/39.you can't stop an assault that has several army groups attacking in a cooord matter.theres not enuf terrain to set up mobile or static defences.i hope you all bear with me , but i've been having these thoughts since i was a 2lt platoon leader.maybe we don't need a C in C.we should let a lt do the planning.jim hruska

"most of nato is former warsaw dudes, who in former ww2 were nazi allies."That Venn diagram would only include Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.

"if the ballon goes up the key point is that they won't fight."That's a widespread prejudice, and so far unproved. I suppose the contrary; there's little to no intent to fight when there's no reason, but once a reason is presented (such as an aggression against one's community) the willingness to fight will grow rapidly. This fits extremely well to history.

Ukraine isn't about NATO. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the countries that are somewhat reasonably concerned about Putin's Russia.

"maybe the germans should demand a contribution from the us for this mess"I've read this point made in German discussions a couple times already.The U.S: has really more endangered than protected Germany. Germany is now in a safe zone geographically. We could disarm and leave NATO and would still not be attacked.

"if any one believes that nato would stop a determined russian assault on the old warsaw pact members then that person is delusional."Ask yourself how many troops Russia could use in a surprise attack on NATO before you go on reading, please.......The answer is about three heavy division equivalents at most. An "army" (division) near St. Petersburg, an "army" (division) kinda near Moscow, a brigade in the Kaliningrad exclave, a brigade that guards Murmansk and a brigade equivalent or two of partially lightly mechanised airborne troops (airlifted).That's not necessarily enough to defeat the Polish land forces.

Too many discussions about the Russian threat are based on gut feelings (prejudices) rather than facts.

SO,thanks for your clear and concise reply.i sometimes feel like i'm out on the flank without any mutual support.

here we are in 2017 which is 100 years on for the US part in ww1.we got into that mess without even being in the entangling alliances. what did we get out of that war?after 50 years up to 1947 we fought 2 wars in europe and a few little shoot tm ups in the pacific arena. we did this without alliances.take the 50 years after 1967 which are all in my memory banks and we did pretty well without alliances.in fact we did so well that we haven't won a war. we could strech the point and say we never lost a war, but sadly this is playing with words. we may be dominant militarily, but we can't win a peace, and this is against crummy 3rd world war lords.now for present day europe.most of nato is former warsaw dudes, who in former ww2 were nazi allies.the shakeup leads me to believe that they are purely political opportunists.if the ballon goes up the key point is that they won't fight.did the nazi allies in ww2 turn back the russian hordes?did france really oppose the german occupation? did France fight the japanese in indochina? did the french in 1969 cause problems in nato?would we really go to war with russia over the ukraine?christ, i hope not. the ukrainians are not worth the words needed to defend them, much less any actual US blood to protect them.nobody asks where the money comes from if we are to have future wars.do we learn from history?COALITION warfare does not work.at least as we do it.

now more on germany.we want them to pay more for their defense AFTER our mideast dustups flooded them with sad immigrants. who pays that bill. maybe the germans should demand a contribution from the us for this mess.strangely nobody addresses this issue. we are dirty in this issue.i predict that the germans will eventually play this card.any way i ramble.if any one believes that nato would stop a determined russian assault on the old warsaw pact members then that person is delusional. to stop them we'd have to light up the battle zone with tac and possibly strategic weapons.now thats a less than comforting thought.theres not enough depth to the battle zone for friendly forces to organize a true defense.it's the same problem that the poles had in sep/39.you can't stop an assault that has several army groups attacking in a cooord matter.theres not enuf terrain to set up mobile or static defences.i hope you all bear with me , but i've been having these thoughts since i was a 2lt platoon leader.maybe we don't need a C in C.we should let a lt do the planning.jim hruska

If you remember your pre-1989 USAREUR wargames, Jim, the "Red Storm Rising" thing almost always went nuclear within a couple of days. The assumption was that the NATO forces in Germany would be speedbumps and only the nukes would stop Ivan short of the Rhine.

Nuts? Sure! But that was the accepted wisdom for fifty years.

Like I said; I'm bigly in favor of an adult discussion of the current status of NATO, US foreign policy, US-EU-German relations et al.

If you can find a single individual in this administration who can actually have that discussion I will catty your rucksack from here to the Halls of Montezuma and kiss your ass when we get there.

Coalition warfare DOES work. But it requires political and strategic thought and cooperation, and an acceptance that some tactical and operational compromises will have to be made in the pursuit of the common end state. A couple of crude examples from the Second World War: the western allies had to keep doing enough stuff, even if some was of questionable value, in order to keep the Soviets in the fight; and while the American and Montgomery despised each other, compromises again had to be made because British and American interests were more important than General Officer egos.

Coalition warfare (among western forces) runs into problems these days because western politicians have differing conclusions about risk/likelihood of global threats, and western military forces can't get their heads out of myopically tactical perspectives.

@ Avedis: "Trump is the only one I am aware of that expresses a desire to withdraw and minimize imperialism."

Please cite where and when Trump ever said he wanted to 'minimize imperialism'? As I recall he said he wanted to "take" Iraq's oil away from them. That is not anti-imperialism! That is the exact opposite.

Chief,i understand what u say , and i'm not combative.back in the early 80s i was at LOGEX for the duration of the exercise.in pre play conference the germans ,up front, stated that they would not play IF tac nukes were employed.even back then they knew that we'd burn the village to save it.this truth equals or exceeds communist nihilism.jim hruska

Kohl aborted the German participation when the NATO wargamers wanted to use a second salvo of nukes (first salvo was two dozen on Poland and Soviet Union).

West German Cold War policy was to avoid nuclear explosions on/over Germany, which by our constitution included East Germany (and by our legal fiction of the time also the territories lost to Poland and SU in 1945).One nuke on a German-Polish Oder bridge would have been unacceptable, ten nukes on Czechoslovakia would have been *meh* to us.